Addressing audiences in a digital age

Digital Literacy for Technical Communication: 21st Century Theory and Practice

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 199-229

  Blakeslee, Ann M ^a  

^a EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84911118691     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203866115     Document Type: Chapter

References (19)

1. Albers, M. (2003). Multidimensional audience analysis for dynamic information. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33, 263-279.
2. Bazerman, C., & Rogers, P. (2008). Writing and secular knowledge within modern European institutions. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text(pp. 157-175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Beaufort, A. (2008). Writing in the professions. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text(pp. 221-235). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Bernhardt, S. A. (1993). The shape of text to come: The texture of print on screens. College Composition and Communication, 44, 151-175.
5. Blakeslee, A. M. (2001). Interacting with audiences: Social influences on the production of scientific writing.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Borland, R. (2002). Tales of brave Ulysses. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping technical communication: New directions and challenges for the 21st century(pp. 189-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Faber, B., & Johnson-Eilola, J. (2002). Migrations: Strategic thinking about the future(s) of technical communication. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping technical communication: New directions and challenges for the 21st century(pp. 135-163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Johnson, R. R. (1998). User-centered technology: A rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
9. Johnson-Eilola, J. (1996). Relocating the value of work: Technical communication in a post-industrial age. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5, 245-270.
10. Kitalong, K. S. (2004). Who are the users? Media representations as audience-analysis teaching tools. In T. Bridgeford, K. S. Kitalong, & D. Selfe (Eds.), Innovative approaches to teaching technical communication(pp. 168-182). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
11. Mirel, B. (1992). Analyzing audiences for software manuals: A survey of instructional needs for "real world tasks." Technical Communication Quarterly, 1, 13-38.
12. Mirel, B. (1998). "Applied constructivism" for user documentation: Alternatives to conventional task orientation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 12, 7-49.
13. Mirel, B. (2002). Advancing a vision of usability. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping technical communication: New directions and challenges for the 21st century(pp. 165-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Mirel, B. (2004). Interaction design for complex problem solving: Developing useful and usable software.Boston, MA: Elsevier.
15. Mirel, B., & Spilka, R. (Eds.) (2002). Reshaping technical communication: New directions and challenges for the 21st century.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Nelson, N. (2008). The reading-writing nexus in discourse research. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text(pp. 435-450). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Porter, J. E. (1998). Rhetorical ethics and internetworked writing.Westport, CT: Ablex.
18. Spilka, R. (1990). Orality and literacy in the workplace: Process- and text-based strategies for multiple-audience adaptation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 4, 44-67.
19. Wysocki, A. F. (2008). Seeing the screen: Research into visual and digital writing practices. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text(pp. 599-611). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.